BlackLogic presents news analysis and commentary crucial to the survival and success of the African Diaspora...and other stuff.
BlackLogic abides by Fair Use Guidelines, which state that the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Mr. Cheney again cited the war in Iraq as a key component in the effortto combat terrorism, saying "The war in Iraq is such a crucial part ofthe greater war on terror that we currently have our legal advisorslooking into the possibility that the 22nd Amendment may not apply in 2008."

Because the speech was not publicized and was held on a secure militarybase, very few journalists were present, and none were able to askquestions about what the Vice President's comments might mean. Repeatedefforts to contact the Vice President's Office to clarify the commentwere unsuccessful.

The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution prohibits U.S. Presidents fromrunning for a third term, stating "No person shall be elected to theoffice of the President more than twice...". The 22nd Amendment waspassed in 1951 after President Franklin Roosevelt broke a tradition thatdated back to George Washington, in which Presidents voluntarily refusedto run for a third term.

Political pundits and Constitutional experts are split on what the VicePresident's comments could mean. Some see the comments as an effort toextend the Administration's "war powers" due to the fact that thecountry is at war. They argue that there is a tenuous case to be madethat the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply during war time since the Congresswaited until after WW II to introduce such an Amendment. Others say thatthe mere fact that the country had just ended the war in 1951, when theAmendment was passed, suggests that the Congress would have put such anexception into the language of the Amendment if they had intended it notapply during times of war.

Others say that the Bush Administration will argue that the 2000 racewas not actually decided by an election and that the Bush administrationhas technically only been "elected" once since the Supreme Court'sDecision in Bush v. Gore effectively nullified the popular vote.Anonymous sources inside the White House have corraborated that this mayindeed be the Administration's plan.

Arguing that it was not actually elected would be a very interestingapproach for the administration to say the least, but most experts agreethat it is certainly possible given the Bush administration's history ofcreative interpretation of the law with regard to such cases as:# the assertion that The Geneva Conventions do not apply to U.S.detainees captured on the battlefield,# suggestions that the legal definition of "torture" only includesactivities that cause death or organ failure,# the argument that U.S. Citizens do not have a right to "due process"if declared "enemy combatants", which was recently rejected by theSupreme Court,# Attorney General Albert Gonzales's testimony before Congress that theConstitution doesn't guarantee U.S. Citizens a right to Habeas Corpus,# The Administration's claim that the FISA law does not apply to theirwarrantless wire taps of Americans.

Critics of the Administration argue that these cases are all the proofneeded to believe that The Bush Administration would try to argue thatits own victory in 2000 demonstrates that it could run for a third termin 2008.